High variability in nutritional value and safety of commercially available Chlorella and Spirulina biomass indicates the need for smart production strategies
Open accessAbstract
Microalgal biomass production is a resource-efficient answer to the exponentially increasing demand for protein, yet variability in biomass quality is largely unexplored. Nutritional value and safety were determined for Chlorella and Spirulina biomass from different producers, production batches and the same production batch. Chlorella presented a similar protein content (47 ± 8%) compared to Spirulina (48 ± 4%). However, protein quality, expressed as essential amino acid index, and digestibility were lower for Chlorella (1.1 ± 0.1 and 51 ± 9%, respectively) compared to Spirulina (1.3 ± 0.1 and 61 ± 4%, respectively). Generally, variability was lower between batches and within a batch. Heavy metals, pesticides, mycotoxins, antibiotics and nitrate did not violate regulatory limits, while polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon levels exceeded the norm for some samples, indicating the need for continuous monitoring. This first systematic screening of commercial microalgal biomass revealed a high nutritional variability, necessitating further optimization of cultivation and post-processing conditions. Based on price and quality, Spirulina was preferred above Chlorella.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Toxic heavy metals present in Spirulina have been deemed not to exceed EU regulations for consumption.
“Of note, toxic heavy metals present in the species have been deemed not to exceed EU regulations for consumption [43].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 175
- Authors
- Muys, M., Sui, Y., Schwaiger, B., Lesueur, C., Vandenheuvel, D., Vermeir, P., & Vlaeminck, S. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Antwerp (BE)
- Austrian Competence Centre of Food Safety (AT)
- Ghent University (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Vlaeminck, Siegfried E.
- Venue
- Bioresource Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 275
- Pages
- 247-257
- ISSN
- 0960-8524 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2905027421
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 2.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Bioresource Technology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Greenwich Academic Literature Archive (University of Greenwich) (acceptedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Belgian Federal Science Policy Office
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Aquaculture Nutrition and Growth
- Keywords
- Chlorella, Spirulina, microalgal biomass, food safety, protein quality, essential amino acids, digestibility, heavy metals, mycotoxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticide residues, nitrate, microalgal proteins
- MeSH terms
- Chlorella, Nutritive Value, Biomass, Spirulina, Microalgae
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
